If there is no evidence showing the fact that a public prosecution has been instituted separately or that a judgment thereon has become final and conclusive for the crime in question and the crime in question, the court has a duty to conduct ex officio an investigation.

In light of the above legal principles, the lower court did not deal with concurrent crimes pursuant to the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act, etc.

In addition, in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court was justifiable to collect KRW 130,00,000 from the Defendant for reasons stated in its reasoning, and did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection.

Meanwhile, the lower court’s assertion that the lower court erred by violating the principle of trial-oriented and substantial direct deliberation in determining sentencing constitutes an unfair judgment for sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Therefore, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.